Star Sonata
http://www.starsonata.com/forum/

Galaxy Quality
http://www.starsonata.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=50726		 Page 2 of 5
Author:  andezrhode3 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
I think this is a good thing, small teams can huddle in one galaxy and get what they need, and big teams need to actually really put themselves out to connect to what they need.
However from a players perspective this is pure unadulterated cuntishness.
Author:  Species 8472 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
Definately think that because of the bigger universe itself that decent shibazzle is spread out way too much. I thought that last uni also had a lack of ai bases .. seems this uni there's a lack of commods and worthey colony planets it seems.

I don't have a single T2+ commod spanning over 20 galaxies which are all in a huddle.
Author:  JeffL [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
I did reduce slightly the number of 100% suitability planets. I didn't chance the chance for any of the resources, though.

There are currently 159 100% planets and 664 75% planets in Wild Space.
Author:  Chaosking3 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
I am fine with that, what I am not a fan of is the overall reduction in coloable planets. I personally do not touch anything below 37% base suit, I am totally ok with a 37% base though.

By reducing the overall 37%+ base planets you reduced the overall amount of colonies someone who does not mind working hard on them can obtain.

Easy fix would be to simply increase that ype if you are going to decrease another.
Author:  thebattler35 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
Reducing the quality of planets only screws new players that can't afford to terraform them.
Author:  zhuang281 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
JeffL wrote:
I did reduce slightly the number of 100% suitability planets. I didn't chance the chance for any of the resources, though.

There are currently 159 100% planets and 664 75% planets in Wild Space.



You tricked me and said there were 280 100% and 7500 75% :( Didnt know you included the unbuildable places as well
Author:  sabre198 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
thebattler35 wrote:
Reducing the quality of planets only screws new players that can't afford to terraform them.


+1
Author:  Camsy [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
If the uni spawns randomly with commods in ef space and wildspace, I guess theres a very very slight chance that ef space would have the commods and wildspace could end up with absolutly no commods at all?
Author:  JeffL [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
There are 4965 planets in Wild Space that are 37% or higher quality.
Author:  sabre198 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
time for a gaseous teraforming project line then
Author:  trevor54 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
Soooo, why not decrease the number of galaxies in Wild Space(there is obviously way too many) and put back the old standards?

Seems like a much more reasonable fix.
Author:  Cygnus [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
Could the chance of a planet being gaseous be lowered? Also, while I agree with the 100% planets being more rare, could the really low planets also be more rare? I'd be happy with a 50% planet half the time, but when a planet is gaseous heavy scorching it's kinda hard to work with, you know?

So maybe make the most common type of planet have between one major bad thing and two minor bad things? And become exponentially more rare the worse the planet becomes. 17% planets should be, like, a bad stroke of luck, not a fact of life.
Author:  Chaosking3 [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
JeffL wrote:
There are 4965 planets in Wild Space that are 37% or higher quality.


This may be the case but if you reduced the amount of 100% colos then you also indirectly reduced the amount of total coloable planets by allowing more sub 37% into the equation.

I have no problem doing up into tier 2 TFing projects (minus greenhouse, that one is stupid) but when even doing level 3 would not garnish much of a gain then something is wrong.

In fact, come to think of it, the whole suitability/TFing project system should probably be overhauled. I don't know a single person who would do a level 3 terraforming project simply because if a planet requires it then it is not worth the effort. The overall requirements for all of the projects should be lowered (greenhouse should be lowered a ton) and their % bonuses should be changed a bit so level 3 is viable/needed rather then just silly/unneeded.
Author:  a jedi master [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
gaseous planets make the most money, it's been proven. terraforming, even the smallest kind, makes a planet make MUCH more money than it's non-terraformed suitability % counterpart.

But yes it's much harder now for players with little money. As far as commods and ruins go, I had a much better time this uni than last uni. But not so much with suitability.
Author:  anilv [ Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Galaxy Quality
I don't care that much if overall planet quality is lower. I do however care that most of the galaxies we explored at reset were completely empty of planets. I would much prefer that planet density be increased even at the cost of fewer Wild Space galaxies or lower suitability planets.
Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/